Now you can understand why I didn't have a very good feeling about the Utah game. But Stanford played far worse than I imagined they could. Once again, Stanford's offensive game plan played right into the other team's hands. Out of the first 10 plays called, seven were runs for a total of 6 yards. Meanwhile, Costello throws for over 300 yards, again demonstrating this team should be using the pass to set up the run, rather than the run to setup the pass. Even setting aside the stubborn as a mule game plan - which by the way is basically what the freaking sideline reporter called it - I saw some very ugly things, and I probably only saw half the game, if that. What stands out:

1. The reverse to Michael Wilson which ended in him being body slammed by the DE for a loss. Before the ball was snapped, Wilson was in a weird stance, calling attention to himself. He wasn't lined up in the stance he would be in as a WR to run a route. He was sort of in a crouch that made it look like he was going to get the ball on an end around. If I saw that, Utah's defense couldn't have been too surprised.

2. Jovan Swann running into Punter. WTF!?!?!? I thought Stanford players were smart? This play only cost Stanford a TD.

3. The called 4th and 1 dive over the pile of bodies crammed as tight as can be, for the first down by Scarlett. Sure he picked up the first down, but could Utah have stuffed that play any more comprehensively? In fact, it was such a cluster of a play that Scarlett knew as soon as he got the ball he had no chance, and had no choice but to run it outside. What on Earth can't they ever do a QB sneak? If I could throw one play out of the Stanford playbook never to be seen again, it would be this asinine run play. No other team in football runs this as stubbornly as Stanford does.

4. Jump balls is not a red zone offense. While particularly JJAW is great at it, where are the slants? Where are the rub routes? Where are the sprint options? Where are the crossing routes? Where are the passes to the FB off interior run actions? You simply must mix things up! The pick 6 inside the 10 off a another jump ball made me go blind.

5. Allowing the 3 pts before half. Utah had 24 secs. Granted, they had three timeouts, but you cannot, under any circumstance allow them to close the half with a FG in that situation. Huntley has been a terrible downfield passer his while career, and like most QBs, he sucks under pressure. Where was the aggressiveness to force a mistake that could have really gotten Stanford momentum, instead of given it right back to Utah?

By my count, the pick 6 in the red zone, the Swann roughing, and allowing the 24 sec FG cost Stanford 17 points. So you have failure on offense, defense, and special teams. Not one area. All areas. One leg of the stool can be weak and you can still win. Sometimes, two legs can be, and you can eke out a victory. But when all three legs fail, you have a collapse that falls at the feet of the head coach. Utah is not Notre Dame or even Oregon. Something is seriously wrong in Stanford's football program to have a system wide failure in a conference home game like this.

I can explain the unimaginative, keep the defense certain, stubborn approach on offense, but the defensive failures to a very mediocre offense, and the special teams gaffe that cost points, aren't as easily explained.

We certainly did play poorly in all three aspects of the game. In the past, Stanford has always gone out and established the run. Now, we go out and establish the can't run. Once that happens, we go into the "throw to receivers that are not open and hope they can muscle the ball away from the defense". We are now out of alternatives, so let's hope the passes work. Last night, they didn't, as we had troubles with interceptions and QB hurries.
The defense would probably have been adequate if the offense had been functioning. Not good, but probably adequate. Unfortunately, the offense and special teams made too many mistakes for a barely adequate defense to overcome.

Utah did play better on offense than they did in their previous games. How much of that was us and how much was them can be debated. However, we were clearly not ready to play last night. I had hoped that the coaches had managed to fire up the OL so they could move people, but it didn't happen. Until it does, we are in lots of trouble.

I would be interested in other peoples opinion, but it seems to me we played better when Scarlett was the running back. The coaches kept going back to Speights. He is faster, and probably a bigger "home run" threat, but doesn't seem to run in traffic as well as Scarlett. He has improved his pass blocking, but I think Scarlett is still a better blocker. It just seemed to me we got better results with Scarlett.

We got lucky against the Ducks. Right now, we should beat OSU, lose to UW and WSU, with the remaining games being tossups. UCLA actually showed a lot of improvement yesterday, and I think we will be hard pressed to beat Cal.

Should be no secret how to beat us at this point. Bring 5, 6 or 7 guys on every play, pressure Costello and let him make bad decisions. After last night, bringing 4 is probably enough. We can't block anyone.

The old TWU guys must be shaking their heads. We may not have thought much of Bloomgren as OC, but he was obviously one hella OL coach.

(10-07-2018, 09:37 AM)Beeg_Dawg Wrote: Failure? Doesn't that assume we are better than we showed?

We got lucky against the Ducks. Right now, we should beat OSU, lose to UW and WSU, with the remaining games being tossups. UCLA actually showed a lot of improvement yesterday, and I think we will be hard pressed to beat Cal.

Should be no secret how to beat us at this point. Bring 5, 6 or 7 guys on every play, pressure Costello and let him make bad decisions. After last night, bringing 4 is probably enough. We can't block anyone.

The old TWU guys must be shaking their heads. We may not have thought much of Bloomgren as OC, but he was obviously one hella OL coach.

OL play (like the offense) has been on a downward plane for several years. same true with the OL pipeline overall since the last Harbs' class.

First 10 plays were 5 passes and 5 runs. Passed on first down on 3 of first 4. The passing game was more varied last night then I’ve seen in a while. Used the TE’s well. Had St.Brown and Wilson playing together for maybe first time all year. Hit Wilson downfield on a TD. Had another to St. Brown but he dropped it. Tough catch but should have had it. Irwin on slants, had a nice night. They moved the ball well passing. And they went to it from the first snap of the game

On the pick six, that was on KJ. He is not supposed to throw that when JJ is doubled. He should have seen that pre snap. I was sitting in that EZ saw the safety cheating over to double. KJ certainly should have

They gave away 27 points. 7 on the roughing penalty. At least 10 on the pick six. 3 more on the second int. And 7 more on the missed sack when the DB was turned around and fell. First it should have been a sack, then it should have been a pick. Ended up as the dagger 6.

I wish the problem last night was play calling or schemes. The main problem , again, is they got slaughtered at the LOS on both sides. The o-line was awful again. When the QB hit as much as KJ has been you make the kind of mistakes he did on the second pick.

Defensively the front 7 is getting beaten badly. They can’t pressure the QB and they can’t stop the run.

I wish we were back to complaining about the offensive scheme while getting a close win.

First 10 plays were 5 passes and 5 runs. Passed on first down on 3 of first 4. The passing game was more varied last night then I’ve seen in a while. Used the TE’s well. Had St.Brown and Wilson playing together for maybe first time all year. Hit Wilson downfield on a TD. Had another to St. Brown but he dropped it. Tough catch but should have had it. Irwin on slants, had a nice night. They moved the ball well passing. And they went to it from the first snap of the game

On the pick six, that was on KJ. He is not supposed to throw that when JJ is doubled. He should have seen that pre snap. I was sitting in that EZ saw the safety cheating over to double. KJ certainly should have

They gave away 27 points. 7 on the roughing penalty. At least 10 on the pick six. 3 more on the second int. And 7 more on the missed sack when the DB was turned around and fell. First it should have been a sack, then it should have been a pick. Ended up as the dagger 6.

I wish the problem last night was play calling or schemes. The main problem , again, is they got slaughtered at the LOS on both sides. The o-line was awful again. When the QB hit as much as KJ has been you make the kind of mistakes he did on the second pick.

Defensively the front 7 is getting beaten badly. They can’t pressure the QB and they can’t stop the run.

I wish we were back to complaining about the offensive scheme while getting a close win.

(10-07-2018, 09:37 AM)Beeg_Dawg Wrote: Failure? Doesn't that assume we are better than we showed?

We got lucky against the Ducks. Right now, we should beat OSU, lose to UW and WSU, with the remaining games being tossups. UCLA actually showed a lot of improvement yesterday, and I think we will be hard pressed to beat Cal.

Should be no secret how to beat us at this point. Bring 5, 6 or 7 guys on every play, pressure Costello and let him make bad decisions. After last night, bringing 4 is probably enough. We can't block anyone.

The old TWU guys must be shaking their heads. We may not have thought much of Bloomgren as OC, but he was obviously one hella OL coach.

This can't be serious, can it? Stanford was fully capable of beating Utah, or at least staying within striking distance until the end of the game, with a solid game plan and players who didn't make terrible mistakes. Stanford has too much talent on its roster to play as it has the last two weeks.

(10-07-2018, 10:12 AM)lex24 Wrote: First 10 plays were 5 passes and 5 runs. Passed on first down on 3 of first 4. The passing game was more varied last night then I’ve seen in a while. Used the TE’s well. Had St.Brown and Wilson playing together for maybe first time all year. Hit Wilson downfield on a TD. Had another to St. Brown but he dropped it. Tough catch but should have had it. Irwin on slants, had a nice night. They moved the ball well passing. And they went to it from the first snap of the game

On the pick six, that was on KJ. He is not supposed to throw that when JJ is doubled. He should have seen that pre snap. I was sitting in that EZ saw the safety cheating over to double. KJ certainly should have

They gave away 27 points. 7 on the roughing penalty. At least 10 on the pick six. 3 more on the second int. And 7 more on the missed sack when the DB was turned around and fell. First it should have been a sack, then it should have been a pick. Ended up as the dagger 6.

I wish the problem last night was play calling or schemes. The main problem , again, is they got slaughtered at the LOS on both sides. The o-line was awful again. When the QB hit as much as KJ has been you make the kind of mistakes he did on the second pick.

Defensively the front 7 is getting beaten badly. They can’t pressure the QB and they can’t stop the run.

I wish we were back to complaining about the offensive scheme while getting a close win.

It’s not going to be pretty from here on out.

I am with you Lex and from where I sit the biggest issue is the Offensive Line. Whether it is injuries, lack of talent, coaching or whatever, the offensive line is simply not moving anyone anywhere or doing very well in terms of pass blocking. Only way I see to protect our defense is for the offense to keep the ball far longer than they are keeping it. Under current conditions we are not going to be winning the TOP game anytime soon.
Is this scheme, coaching, injuries, or a case where the the incoming talent simply turns out to have peaked in high school? I don't think Turley has forgotten how to make guys stronger physically, but it sure doesn't show up in games this year.
I wish there was a single and obvious answer, but am afraid we are dealing with lots of causes and it doesn't appear likely it will get fixed this year.

Can I just say (as a very casual fan of our football team) that while no one likes to lose - ever - the perverse thing about being a Stanford fan is knowing that the Cardboarders will provide even more enlightening commentary in defeat than in victory. In the same way that I assess judicial quality by how a judge writes a dissent (which is often quite difficult) rather than a majority opinion (which is often quite easy), I think how fans unpack a defeat, diagnose weaknesses, and identify next steps is the true measure of their worth. And on this, y'all are exceptional. No pouting, no whining, no pejoratives, just substance. The breakdowns here are x100 the quality of the best I can find on any proprietary site!

HHow was the game plan not solid? The problem wasn’t scheme or playcalling. They moved the ball. And it was not a conservative plan. The problem on offense is their line got whipped and they made some of immense proportions mistakes.

Defensively they got smoked by a bad offense.

I’m afraid I agree with Dawg.

(10-07-2018, 10:58 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:

(10-07-2018, 09:37 AM)Beeg_Dawg Wrote: Failure? Doesn't that assume we are better than we showed?

We got lucky against the Ducks. Right now, we should beat OSU, lose to UW and WSU, with the remaining games being tossups. UCLA actually showed a lot of improvement yesterday, and I think we will be hard pressed to beat Cal.

Should be no secret how to beat us at this point. Bring 5, 6 or 7 guys on every play, pressure Costello and let him make bad decisions. After last night, bringing 4 is probably enough. We can't block anyone.

The old TWU guys must be shaking their heads. We may not have thought much of Bloomgren as OC, but he was obviously one hella OL coach.

This can't be serious, can it? Stanford was fully capable of beating Utah, or at least staying within striking distance until the end of the game, with a solid game plan and players who didn't make terrible mistakes. Stanford has too much talent on its roster to play as it has the last two weeks.

Based on what I have seen this year, The TWU is no more. The OL, whether due to injury or coaching, is now a weakness and not a strength. The team has been out-toughed the last three weeks and the Utes clearly were more aggressive in all phases last night. The days of Stanford "imposing its will" are no more. Yes, Shaw's stubborn play calling isn't helping anyone. I loved that Scarlett decided to pop it outside when we ran the Ogre package.

What is sad to me is that this is the best group of receivers and d-backs that we have ever had, but we continue to try and "impose our will" with the ground game up the middle on offense and can't pressure the qb very often on D. The injuries are mounting as more defensive units stack the box given what they know about our play calling.

I'm still very much in the camp that we need a solid OC, ideally with a strong OL pedigree. I expect a mid tier bowl this year.

(10-07-2018, 03:54 PM)Treebound Wrote: I loved that Scarlett decided to pop it outside when we ran the Ogre package.

Me too. It was the right thing to do. It was clear there was no inside push and therefore no hole. Why didn't he get more playing time?

Quote:as more defensive units stack the box

Not any more they don't. The have figured out that they don't need to. That is our real problem. The first two games of the year, we saw a stacked box. Oregon started the trend of mixing it up, Notre Dame continued it (and expanded on it when we got further behind), and Utah played back quite often the whole game. They know we have to pass, because we can't run. We got no push against the front 7. (In our case, 7 is enough). We now see the double coverage that we didn't see earlier in the year because there weren't enough pass defenders.

Against teams that have a weaker DL, we may get back to the stacked box on 1st and 2nd down, at least until the other team figures out they can stop us with less (or not, if we are lucky). But you can bet UW will not go that way. Their DL and linebackers will play it straight up. I suspect Cal will also.

(10-07-2018, 04:27 PM)BostonCard Wrote: There are many ways to skin the cat, but looking at our run/pass breakdown, I don’t see anything that suggests we weren’t passing at least as much as we were running.

BC

We were. The problem is, we were so ineffective running that Utah could drop back more pass defenders on most downs. That leads to double coverage (and an interception). The second defender being there is not part of the plan. This is a problem since when we rely on our receivers to make plays when they are well covered. KJ makes a living throwing passes that most coaches would bench a QB for throwing. He throws to covered receivers as a matter of course. With us, it's normal offense. The fact we got as many yards as we did is a tribute to the receivers and KJ. However, since Utah could get pressure (often when rushing only 4), it also led to sacks, hurries, an interception and a fumble. This pressure also contributed to some under-thrown balls and not reading who was double covered at times. This same scenario let to an interception against ND (except the receiver was actually triple covered).

The pick 6 was the turning point of the game. It had nothing to do with pressure. KJ missed a pre-snap read. They doubled JJ. KJ had to come off him and look for Smith who was slotted same side, or the receiver (Parkinson, I think) that lined up wide to right side and was single covered.

I also thought Stanford had a fair amount of open receivers with separation last night. But you are right that the pressure overall was a killer.

(10-07-2018, 04:45 PM)Goose Wrote:

(10-07-2018, 04:27 PM)BostonCard Wrote: There are many ways to skin the cat, but looking at our run/pass breakdown, I don’t see anything that suggests we weren’t passing at least as much as we were running.

BC

We were. The problem is, we were so ineffective running that Utah could drop back more pass defenders on most downs. That leads to double coverage (and an interception). The second defender being there is not part of the plan. This is a problem since when we rely on our receivers to make plays when they are well covered. KJ makes a living throwing passes that most coaches would bench a QB for throwing. He throws to covered receivers as a matter of course. With us, it's normal offense. The fact we got as many yards as we did is a tribute to the receivers and KJ. However, since Utah could get pressure (often when rushing only 4), it also led to sacks, hurries, an interception and a fumble. This pressure also contributed to some under-thrown balls and not reading who was double covered at times. This same scenario let to an interception against ND (except the receiver was actually triple covered).

KJ has been heroic at times, but his lack of mobility to get 2 to 3 first downs a game with his legs has been a problem. He also seems slow to recognize coverage or a blitz to get the ball out early or check into a better play.

(10-07-2018, 05:06 PM)Ronnietrader Wrote: KJ has been heroic at times, but his lack of mobility to get 2 to 3 first downs a game with his legs has been a problem. He also seems slow to recognize coverage or a blitz to get the ball out early or check into a better play.

Coaches don't want him to run at all. He had offseason hip surgery and his backup is made of tissue paper.

(10-07-2018, 04:59 PM)lex24 Wrote: The pick 6 was the turning point of the game. It had nothing to do with pressure. KJ missed a pre-snap read. They doubled JJ. KJ had to come off him and look for Smith who was slotted same side, or the receiver (Parkinson, I think) that lined up wide to right side and was single covered.

KJ just was not expecting anybody to be doubled, I think. We have become so used to a stacked box and no "extra" DBs that it doesn't get read. As far as pressure goes, you are correct that on that play he had time. Problem was he just wasn't "reading" what he saw. Pre-snap, it may be you aren't sure who the will double (but JJAW is a good guess!). But before you throw it, you have to find the DBs. If you are only looking for two of them, but there are actually three in coverage (on that side of the field), bad things will happen.

Quote:I also thought Stanford had a fair amount of open receivers with separation last night.

I remember one time Irwin was very open. Don't remember many others though. We got a lot of tight end across the middle that for sure were contested. JJAW caught two sideline routes that I recall, both of which were very well covered. It just didn't matter. The ball was thrown away from the DB and he had no chance. And yes, he was singled up.

(10-07-2018, 05:27 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:

(10-07-2018, 05:06 PM)Ronnietrader Wrote: KJ has been heroic at times, but his lack of mobility to get 2 to 3 first downs a game with his legs has been a problem. He also seems slow to recognize coverage or a blitz to get the ball out early or check into a better play.

Coaches don't want him to run at all. He had offseason hip surgery and his backup is made of tissue paper.

Probably true, but he is getting hit a lot out there anyway. Might as well run a bit, not as a "planned" run but an escape run. I wouldn't make a habit of it, but he got hit a lot on Saturday. Three yards and a slide might be better than just getting smacked. He showed he can still run well enough when chasing the DB on the pick 6. It is not that he is hurt too, which was what I feared was true.

Agree and am puzzled by how much the OL has regressed. More concerned about the lack of viable guys in the DL and at safety. Should be priority A in 2020 recruiting since they don’t look like they are getting any studs at those positions this cycle. No pressure and soft in the middle plus a safety who whiffs more than Dave Kingman.

About Our Community

Welcome to The CardBoard. We are THE community for Stanford sports fans and guests. We include alumni, former athletes, students, and just plain Cardinal crazies, as well as guest fans of Cardinal opponents.